Waste disposal could be greener at half the cost

GUERNSEY would make a big mistake if it went ahead with the proposed mass-burn incinerator. Three international waste management companies have put forward alternatives and one has said that it could solve the island's problems in a more environmentally friendly way for half the cost.

London-based Verno has criticised the research the former Board of Administration used in reaching its decision.

The company has provided details of its option.

Next week, the States will debate Deputy Scott Ogier's requete calling for an independent review of the current proposals and a look at viable alternatives.

'Rather than one gigantic incinerator, Guernsey needs a more sophisticated and holistic approach,' said Ivan Richardson, Verno's founder and a director.

'That would be plasma gasification at its core but also biomass treatment centres and the full range of reduction, separation at source, recycling and reuse processes based on a localised requirement. It also involves the community rather than detaching them from the problem.'

Verno's system involved waste material being fed into a reactor where it would be heated, causing organic compounds to tun into gas.

Inorganics, when cooled, form a non-toxic material that can be used in the construction industry.

'Plasma gasification, in conjunction with a well-planned waste strategy plan, can deal with the island's waste in a localised, safe and economical way,' said Mr Richardson.

He challenged the Juniper report that the board's successor, the Environment Department, have used to justify its decision.

The department has defended that research and last week said that the subsequent Fichter report 'closely supports the recommendations of the Juniper report'.

Mr Richardson said that the Juniper report ignored the science of the gasification system.

The research also ignored 'a significant gasification industry' around the world, including in Japan, France, USA and Australia.

He added that Juniper looked at gasification but ignored the plasma variant.

Mr Richardson believed that the Verno system was considerably better than incineration.

He said it could treat all waste, including hazardous and clinical: an energy-from-waste plant could not.

Plasma gasification does not generate further waste bottom ash which still needs to go to landfill.

It produces a clean gas that can be converted to hydrogen and used in silent and clean electricity generation which would contribute to the island's energy needs.

He added that the plasma facility was switch-on, switch-off, whereas mass burn incinerators, which use diesel to get up to temperature, must be used continually to be efficient.

'We would not recommend one large mass burn incinerator and we do not recommend one large plasma gasification facility. This is an old world approach. The big is beautiful approach. Very old school,' he said.

'Several strategically located and specially-designed plasma facilities operating around the island, drawing waste from the local area with a system designed to treat that waste in particular is more environmentally sustainable.'

Mr Richardson said that a plasma facility with a 50 tonne per day capacity would cost around £8m. to commission. To treat 70,000 tonnes per year the island would need four at a total cost of £32m. Insurance, financial fees and initial running costs would take spending to £37m.

Operating costs would be £50 per tonne and with 70,000 tonnes a year this would cost £3.5m. a year, less earnings from electricity generated.

Environment-backed Lurgi UK's energy-from-waste plant would have a capital cost of £72.8m, operating costs of £7.5m for two years with a user pays cost of £100 per tonne.